Sentences for contempt of court are not necessarily consecutive.

Wednesday

Dec 19, 2012 at 12:25 PM

In People v Veilleux, __ Mich __ (#145142, 12/18/2012) the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and ordered the trial court to strike the provisions of the Judgment of sentence that made the sentences for contempt consecutive to each other and consecutive to defendant’s sentence for the underlying felony.“A consecutive sentence may be imposed only if specifically authorized by statute.” People v Lee, 233 Mich App 403, 405 (1999). Contrary to the lower courts’ holdings, MCL 768.7a(1) does not specifically authorize the consecutive sentences imposed here. MCL 768.7a(1) only applies to “[a] person who is incarcerated in a penal or reformatory institution in this state, or who escapes from such an institution.” When defendant committed the contempts of court at issue here, he was not at the time incarcerated in a penal or reformatory institution and he was not an escapee.

In People v Veilleux, __ Mich __ (#145142, 12/18/2012) the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and ordered the trial court to strike the provisions of the Judgment of sentence that made the sentences for contempt consecutive to each other and consecutive to defendant’s sentence for the underlying felony.“A consecutive sentence may be imposed only if specifically authorized by statute.” People v Lee, 233 Mich App 403, 405 (1999). Contrary to the lower courts’ holdings, MCL 768.7a(1) does not specifically authorize the consecutive sentences imposed here. MCL 768.7a(1) only applies to “[a] person who is incarcerated in a penal or reformatory institution in this state, or who escapes from such an institution.” When defendant committed the contempts of court at issue here, he was not at the time incarcerated in a penal or reformatory institution and he was not an escapee.